Hello:
My father worked for the city of Milwaukee in the sanitation department for 38 years before he retired. All city workers including teachers, police and fire are also required to my knowledge, to live in the city of Milwaukee in order to get a city job.

I live in a suburb of Milwaukee called Wauwatosa and we have no such policy. For a time, I worked for the Wauwatosa police department and the city of Wauwatosa has never had this policy like Milwaukee does.

I asked the Human resource woman why Wauwatosa has no resendency requirement and she said Wauwatosa had trouble in the early years finding people who wanted to drive to the suburbs when there were no expressways, and the city fathers never made it a requirement.

Last night, a woman who hires teachers for the City of Milwaukee, indicated there will be 750 teacher openings next year due to all the recent retirements in the teaching profession . They are thinking of changing the residency policy that if you get a teaching job in Milwaukee you have 3 years to move to Milwaukee. She is aware that some new teachers will quit after 3 years not to move to Milwaukee, but she said she needs these positions filled.

What do you think? Should a city require it's employees to live in the same city you work in order to get a job? Does your city have something similar?
Steve Balistreri

I originaly took the city exam for the position as there were a total of 300 applicants. Luckily, I scored #1 on the test and the Lt. and captain interviewed the top 5 candicates by score on the test.

I contacted my city Alderman and told him that I scored #1 on the test, and the other 4 were non residents. I mentioned that I also have been paying city taxes to the city of Wauwatosa since 1976.

After the interviews were conducted, a decision was made to hire me. This position was for working 3rd shift 11:30pm to 8am. I needed this shift to work as my children were at home as my wife had a very good job as she worked first shift, and I had to get them to school and pick them up.

While I was working there, there were a lot of changes and they decided that they wanted employees to start working different shifts if need be.

Long story short, it was not working out because of the change in hours and I gave my notice and went back into banking. So the question is, should a city require it's employees to have to live in the same city that they work?

I don't know the answer. When I applied I felt I pay taxes to this city, and I should have an upper hand than non residents being hired, along with scoring #1 on the test.

On the other hand, if I was looking for a city job, it would be nice to apply in a city that I did not live in. I guess you can't have it both ways.

Some feel, you should pay your taxes in the city that you work. I am really undecided about this. What is your opinion?
Steve

WOW.... Some time ago, Detroit required their police officers to live in the city limits. The police took them to court and it was found unconstitutional as a requirement of employment.

Above is the link for Judge rules state law unconstitutional; firefighters have to live in city...

ST. LOUIS • A Cole County judge has thrown out a new state law giving city firefighters the right to live outside city limits, notching a victory for the city in the protracted fight over fire department benefits and wages.

Judge Jon Edward Beetem ruled that the Missouri Constitution protects a city's right to make such decisions.

The concepts of home rule and local control would be "mere illusions" if the state could dictate city employment qualifications, Beetem summarized in his ruling last week, which was delivered to city attorneys today.

The city has long had residency requirements for most of its employees. Police won a partial reprieve in 2005 when the state-appointed police board voted to allow officers with more than seven years of service to move out of the city.

A year ago, the Missouri Legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to give firefighters the same, so long as they lived within an hour of their home fire station. City leaders vehemently argued that only the city could change residency requirements. St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay even sent a letter to Gov. Jay Nixon, warning him that if the governor signed the bill, the city would have no choice but to sue.

City staff now say the judge's decision revalidates a city's right to rule itself.

"It was an important issue for the city," said city attorney Michael Garvin.

Chris Molitor, president of the local firefighters union, called the ruling a "disappointment," but said he was still tracking down the specifics of the case, and couldn't really comment.

He said firefighters only wanted "a freedom enjoyed by most Americans," and that he'd have to talk to his members before making further decisions.

I work for the city before I retired and you had to live with in 5 miles of town and you had one year to make the change. City's do this so that you can report to work fast if they need you. You will found out most people will make the move to have a job.

There are two classes of employees in my mind. Essential employees (ie. fire fighters and peace officers) and non-essential employees (teachers, public works, and so on).

My opinion is that non-essential job classifications should not be subject to residency requirements. Essential employees who are subject to call-back (call outs) should be subject to certain response time requirements. Essential employees employed by a unit of government who are not subject to call-backs should not have residency requirements.

Those are just my opinions. When you tell a prospective employee where they must live, you limit your pool of candidates. Limiting your pool of candidates only hurts the employer.

They had this where I used to live, but there was such a discrepancy between the city, with its restricted space available for housing artificially inflating the cost of housing, and the suburbs, having room and lower costs, that it was thrown out when it was grieved by city employees. It also only applied to the emergency services, not the clerical or outside workers. I believe there was a move to put a restriction on how far outside city limits one could live, based on emergency reporting times, but that was thrown out as well, due to the differences in road structure and commute times. A one-size-fits-all distance was unworkable, so the whole system was tossed, with the emergency services being told to use common sense in their choice of residence.

I don't believe that a person should be restricted in their place of residence, as one employee could live in the city, and another living right across the road could be outside the city. So long as they aren't living so far away from their job that they can't report in a reasonable length of time in an emergency situation, it is no business of the employer where they live.

I used to work on a ship where we did 14 on, 14 off. Very few people lived near the base, as it shifted seasonally, with neither place being desirable due to a number of factors. Usually, we flew to and from work, but in the summer, we sometimes drove to and from work, and had a little holiday before or after our shift. One of the captains had a residence fairly close, but when his wife attended the University of Hawaii, he rented out his house, and would fly down to live with her on his days off. This worked out to be cheaper than maintaining two single residences, factoring in the rent he recieved. A newspaper columnist found out he was commuting to Hawaii for his days off, and raised a big stink in print about it, saying that we were paying our ship's crews far too much if they can afford to commute to and from Hawaii, with the result being that upper management ordered him to stop commuting, and live back here. Being management side, without the protection afforded by the union, he had to obey. His off duty place of residence had nothing to do with his ability to do the job, it didn't reflect on the company, if you knew the whole story, but because we we publicly funded, we were a political football, and subject to the whims of government and whichever way the winds were blowing. Rather than explain the situation, which was well known (and envied) by upper management, they chose the politically expedient way, and pleased their political masters. It increased this man's cost of living, could arguably be said to have affected him psychologically, due to the extended absences from his spouse, and was a blatantly political move in response to a drunken journalist creating a stink to justify his wages. I believe the correct thing to have done was to have said "Yes, he lives in Hawaii with his wife on his days off, while she attends university there, and it is none of your business. It doesn't affect his ability to perform his duties, nor does it reflect poorly on how we compensate our employees. End of story."

This is along winded way of saying "No, Steve. I don't believe you should have to live in the city where you work!"

At one time I was going to take a job form the city of Des Moines but I had to live in the city limits which I didn't, glad I didn't take it though might not have moved to Texas to meet the sweetest girl in the world that would become my wife

I read your responses and I am starting to be swayed that no one should have the right to tell you where to live. A lot of Milwaukee's city workers live as far out of Milwaukee as possible, some across the street to city suburbs.

I do know a couple that live in the suburbs and give their address and phone #'s of relatives that live in MIlwaukee and they are in constant fear of having their employer find out that they actually don't live in Milwaukee.

When my father use to work for the city, if you called in sick, a supervisor actually came to the house to make sure you were home and that you were ill. I believe the police department is still that way too, but not 100% sure.
Steve

back in the day here in Maine Police and Fire had to live in the city limits if not when hired you had one year to do so, I lived and worked here as a firefighter and saw no problem with it ! now I am retired and they have relaxed the rule you can live where you choose ! I think you should live in the city you work in but what do i know! It just seems if you making a good living for a certain city its only fair to give some back !

My great grandfather was a rural mail carrier and was required to live on the route that he serviced. At that time I believe that a postmaster also had to reside within the boundaries of his office. I'm sure that this had to do with being there to take care of any immediate business if it arose. Transportation at that time being a horse,I'm sure many of these requirements that we are talking about are outdated. Just old laws on the books that should be changed. Bill